I saw that round 4 had a lot of inactives D:I know that I was busy for a day, and had a hard time to catch up, because it took more time than you think (reading everything clearly and figuring out what's going on etc.) It can take up to 2 or even 3 hours, depending on how much people posted.

So I thought maybe something like a diary from every player could help those busy people keeping up with the game when they happen to have just few time on a day or two.Like, a separate thread will be created and every player can only post once in it (any additional post will be deleted). In that thread, the "diary thread", people can post their current thoughts.Like: "I think googleearth is the informant. But I don't think stop is the spy and don't want to vote her like some other people want to do it today"Just something small. If you want to figure out who the real spy is etc. you'd still have to read the whole topic where everyone posts. It's just so, if you have to decide on who to vote fast (or not to vote), you can read that "diary thread" Also, every player is allowed to edit their diary post, to keep it up to date.Maybe that could help people to be less inactive.

With the new 5-votes system, the problem of inactivity comes with a couple of solutions.I'll be as short as possible: if a person doesn't vote, they lose one vote. so if they fail to vote 5 days, they won't be able to vote anymore.Another idea is: if one fails to vote, they won't be allowed to vote the next day.

alright, i think i got confused with my own example there.. anyway, since i can spread out my "5 votes", i gave 4 to Jd- and 1 to Togop.. everybody else gave their full votes on whoever they voted. following The New Method, the one with the least vote is..... everybody else. xD so who gets arrested? and does The New Method actually defined as this: All players shall vote for who they think should NOT be arrested.

--*dumytru posted before me.. now i'm even more confused on how the new voting system actually works

Foremost, I contend that if everyone were to get involved with at least a post a day and send in all their actions, the question of a large time commitment really wouldn't even have to come up. It is, in an odd way, due to the inactivity that the other players have to indirectly make up for it because they have so little to go on and thus have to get further and further into the game to give themselves a chance to win. We have to stop that from happening.

To SA specifically: We won't let them self-vote; you can't vote for yourself in the new method nor can you vote for dead/arrested players. Theoretically, if they don't send in votes, they would just end up with nothing unless an active player supports them. You would be voting for the people you want to see survive to the next phase, so it's basically the opposite of how it once was.

Why do you want to limit the maximum number of confidence votes one can cast. If we do it that way, it will make the game require a significant time commitment. Additionally, unless you allow unlimited votes, up to one per person, it will require a combined civillian effort above what can be reasonably achieved in an online game to vote out the spy once you know who they are - you'd still need to ensure everyone else does get votes.

Togop wrote:Why do you want to limit the maximum number of confidence votes one can cast. If we do it that way, it will make the game require a significant time commitment. Additionally, unless you allow unlimited votes, up to one per person, it will require a combined civillian effort above what can be reasonably achieved in an online game to vote out the spy once you know who they are - you'd still need to ensure everyone else does get votes.

Sorry for the late response, been sick lately.

Basically, I just felt that being able to cast a vote for everyone would make it a bit meaningless as far as forming alliances and such. There would be players who just sent in votes for everyone without really making other considerations, instead of having to take at least a second to decide who to vote for and support. Maybe we should run a simulation later to see how it would play out with the Informants involved.

Though can townies really work together to keep people alive? Because even with people who are not caught up with the thread, pose a problem by voting whom the town wants to see arrested. Because if it all about least amount of votes the spies and informants can still save themselves out in case they are in a pinch. Sure they get caught but Detective can't really arrest the spy.

Assuming everyone works together and vote for people to move on, the spies and informants can still create a tie and move on. And the Spy can still kill each day.

Kamite wrote:Jd-, you been watching the Liar Game again haven't you?...

I wish! A great, great show, but sadly haven't seen it since the last movie a couple of years ago. Would love to rewatch it sometime; here, though, I just looked at the problem we had with voting currently and thought, "Why not just reverse this?" (somewhat similar to one of the Liar Game rules in the first season if I recall).

There are a few options on how to handle avoiding the Spy/Informants hijacking the votes, as I mentioned a few days ago/last week. The minimalist option would be to make it so that the votes are never shown and the special role players can only pretend to vote but have no actual votes to give (thus making it so only civilians can actually do arrests, even if they're misled). Like this, the special role players (including the Detective and Spy both) would have to get involved in the topic in order to get votes from other players to stay in the game. I'm not entirely sure how this would work out, as the vote exchanges could eventually reveal who's who from the people who are supposedly exchanging votes but ending up arrested (potentially). Another option along these lines is to give special role players some votes, but not many, or to give the Detective and Spy the ability to vote but not the Informants.

OR: We can go with the system of everyone getting five votes to hand out and the player that receives the most votes is the elected player ("Mayor"/"Representative"/"Governor" or something along those lines) and can silence a certain set of players' votes. This would, at the very least, prevent the Spy/Informants from immediately seizing control of the game, but may have its own pitfalls.

I've been a bit sick lately, with some lingering symptoms, but I'm almost back in action. We really need some momentum going into Round 5, so I hope everyone is ready to go when the time comes.

Jd- wrote:There are a few options on how to handle avoiding the Spy/Informants hijacking the votes, as I mentioned a few days ago/last week. The minimalist option would be to make it so that the votes are never shown and the special role players can only pretend to vote but have no actual votes to give (thus making it so only civilians can actually do arrests, even if they're misled). Like this, the special role players (including the Detective and Spy both) would have to get involved in the topic in order to get votes from other players to stay in the game. I'm not entirely sure how this would work out, as the vote exchanges could eventually reveal who's who from the people who are supposedly exchanging votes but ending up arrested (potentially). Another option along these lines is to give special role players some votes, but not many, or to give the Detective and Spy the ability to vote but not the Informants.

This has two problems:1) Abusability:Assuming you can vote at most once for each player, split the players in groups of six, and another group of less than six (possibly taken from your list). Then have everyone vote for the other people in their group, except for the people in the extra group who wouldn't vote. If everyone goes along, it would become immediately obvious who hasn't voted by who has more votes than their groupmates.That doesn't guarantee civillian victory, as the detective is also revealed (or limited to a small group), and there's always the chance that the spy is in the small group, but I think it's too powerful.If you can vote for a person as many times as you want, then you need groups of 2, and things become a lot easier.2) Our current problem is that we often can't figure out where people are standing. Instead of concealingt he voting we should use a voting system which reveals more about where people stand.

Jd- wrote:We can go with the system of everyone getting five votes to hand out and the player that receives the most votes is the elected player ("Mayor"/"Representative"/"Governor" or something along those lines) and can silence a certain set of players' votes. This would, at the very least, prevent the Spy/Informants from immediately seizing control of the game, but may have its own pitfalls.

I can't agree with that either. With these rules, assuming that one can cast more than one vote for the same player, the only way to eliminate the spy is to figure out all the infmants, elect a representative who's not amongst them, have that representative silence all the informants, and ensure the spy gets 0 votes while everyone else gets at least one (needs coordination of at least 20% of the players). Otherwise, at least one informant would cast all their votes forthe spy and there'd surely be someone with less votes (or, unlikely, everyone will be with 5 votes). Doable in enough rounds, so the spy couldn't afford to announce themself at prep phase, but way too hard.

The only way that I see, which makes your voting system work, and is not extremely complicated is this:1) Max one vote per person.2) Total votes at least thrice the number of informants. That way the average number of votes would be three times more than the number of votes the informants could give the spy, so they wouldn't find it too easy to protect him/her.I'd suggest that the number of votes you get be 50% of the alive players, or thrice the number of informants, whichever is larger. That way one's vote would give enough information on where they stand.

Also, each unassigned vote should become half (or a third, or however is balanced) self-antivote. If it becomes a full self-antivote, one single day inactivity would very likely kill you, which is a little severe.

anyway, i still don't understand how this 5-vote system works. is it similar to the "minority voting" or the "restructuring game"? [spoiler]don't spoil anything![/spoiler]hold on, let me listen to Fukunaga's explanation of his strategy again...

anyway, i still don't understand how this 5-vote system works. is it similar to the "minority voting" or the "restructuring game"? [spoiler]don't spoil anything![/spoiler]hold on, let me listen to Fukunaga's explanation of his strategy again...

The 5 votes per person is not from LG. The idea that the last should be excluded is in the downsizing game. Anyway, don't watch it, read the manga. The games in the TV show are simplified versions of these in the mange.

Edit: Now that I think about it, people did get five votes in the downsizing game.

Last edited by Togop on March 27th, 2014, 5:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

dumytru wrote:Oh, I thought I'd be a good watch, but then I realised I already watched it. But yeah, it was awesome!

Seems like eveeryone here likes Liar Game.

If you liked Liar Game you should give One Outs a try. It's a baseball manga by the same author and reads a bit like Liar Game without the annoying naive girl. Madhouse also made a really good anime out of the first 10 or so volumes.